| |
| ▲ | 98codes an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "Someone else would be willing to ruin this, so I may as well ruin it and get paid for it" is not a direction everyone wants to, or even is willing to go. | |
| ▲ | jlengrand an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In case you care, what you're doing is called causal impotence https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTIO-18. Then you can also search why it does matter. | | |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Where do you draw the line? You're a TVC in the kitchen at Meta? All you do is give girls depression? You work at a business that buys ads on Meta? Is all you do is give girls depression? Even if you work in a non-profit branch specifically to do out-reach for kids or something?? How far separated from Meta do you have to be to not be reduced to doing nothing but giving girls depression? | | |
| ▲ | mplanchard an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Obviously it’s a spectrum, no? Anyone contributing to the edifice is in some way furthering its core mission (giving girls depression, or utterly destroying society, depending on who you ask). At one end of the spectrum you have very talented, smart engineers who could easily get a job anywhere, devoting their lives to targeting ads, surveillance, brain-hacking the masses with the algorithm in order to sell more ads, etc. At the other end is, let’s say, the cleaning staff. Meta would suffer if either group outright refused to work for them, but their mission is affected more by the engineers, they are harder to replace, they have many more options in terms of alternative employment, and they have greater knowledge of the impact of the business. Thus, they bear (much) higher relative moral responsibility. Compare to the cleaning staff, who, because of their relative lack of standing, agency (they likely work for some other company that Meta contracts with), or other options, bear negligible moral responsibility, even though their absence would likely make Meta’s offices uninhabitable. Everyone working there is somewhere on that spectrum. They can make their own judgements about the degree to which they bear any moral culpability, but it’s not unfair to say that someone working on open source at Facebook still contributes to the overall mission by oss-washing facebook’s reputation, promulgating the brand into the engineering consciousness, etc., even if they are not directly contributing to giving girls depression. | | |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > At one end of the spectrum you have very talented, smart engineers who could easily get a job anywhere Not exactly... > devoting their lives to targeting ads, surveillance, brain-hacking the masses with the algorithm in order to sell more ads, etc. Nice try, but most of engineering at Meta has almost as much to do with this as the food staff... So the question remains - if you're an engineer working on nothing related to any of that - most of Meta - why is your work reduced to "destroying girls lives" but the TVC's working in the kitchen are not? Why are people working at GM, who have a large ad spend on Meta, not destroying girls lives? But the people working on storage compression algorithms to save on hardware costs are?? Why is the TVC not bad, but the person working on decorating the offices is? | | |
| ▲ | mplanchard 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My answer already addresses this? I didn’t say every engineer works on those things. I said it’s a spectrum, with the people working on those things at one end. I also already answered that they all contribute to the edifice, with different levels of moral culpability, which it’s up to them to hash out how they feel about. Meta’s business is enabled by (practically) everyone who works for them, otherwise they wouldn’t pay them to work there. The storage compression algorithms are enabled by and contribute to the mission of the company. If you’re comfortable knowing that your job is paid for by destroying society, and that your work makes that destruction a little more efficient, that’s fine. Storage algorithms are pretty low on the spectrum, and at least they may have some other uses if open sourced. For me, I wouldn’t do it, because I don’t want to contribute even in a small way to what Meta does. But others obviously can and do feel differently. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It requires discernment, to be sure. The Principle of Double Effect[0] is essential in such cases, because it helps determine when cooperation with evil is remote or proximate, and when such cooperation with evil is morally permissible. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ | |
| ▲ | jlengrand an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your obsession about teenage girls is worrying EDIT: my bad, I read you wrong and didn't realize you didn't bring up the whole tenage girl thing. Sorry for that. | | |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo an hour ago | parent [-] | | Nice dodge. I'm directly addressing OP's original comment that "all anyone at Meta does is give girls depression." It's almost as if it's not that reductive... even though you just made the same reduction... Want to answer the actual question? | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz an hour ago | parent [-] | | I remember before FB was a thing and sharing photos with your friends was a huge pain in the ass. We had dozens of different websites in this days from MySpace to some weird ones that you've never heard of before. They all did the same thing as FB even to the point of having a very similar UI. The whole "damage to the world" thing is lost on me. I was in college when FB came out and we all were eagerly trying to get an invite to the site. You could only sign up with an EDU email at the beginning. Before Facebook there were magazines for teenagers that set the same exact standards and had the same exact issues. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Very interesting, never heard the term before but are there more philosophical concepts tying in the ideas of solidarity and labor movements? Thanks for sharing the paper. Going to read it tonight, the abstract is very interesting. | | |
| ▲ | Anon1096 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Do you really think the guy branding thousands of people working at Meta as basically pedophiles can really be said to care about "solidarity"? I certainly wouldn't consider someone a peer if they randomly go and call me a pedophile because of where I work. I'm sure 95% of people working there have 0 relation to the algorithm decisions and definitely have no particular fixation on giving teenage girls depression. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jbxntuehineoh 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But your honor! If I didn't sell heroin, someone else would! | |
| ▲ | Retric an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Someone else isn’t a 1:1 replacement, when people refuse to work for you you’re stuck offering higher wages and or taking worse employees. How well a job is compensated on average very much depends on how willing and able the average person is to do it. | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Someone else would do it if I don't" is not, and never has been, a valid argument for whether something is moral to do. If you want to argue that it's morally permissible to work at Facebook, you need to argue that on its own merits, not by appealing to fallacies. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? Putting Meta aside as I do not have a sufficiently deep view of the total scope of work at Meta and its relation to its misdeeds, I never understood how anyone found this fallacious line of reasoning convincing. So what if someone else would do it? The point is that you are morally responsible for your actions and your actions alone. It horrifies me completely to realize that so many people would excuse their own gravely immoral actions on the incomprehensible grounds that if they didn't do it, someone else would. Where is the logic? It is such a severely morally and psychologically crippled way of thinking. Yes, if I don't shoot the innocent civilian in the head, then SS-Schütze Schmidt will do it anyway, so I might as well do it. Incredible. Morality is not some calculus that is concerned about whether certain events occur or about optimizing some sum total of events. It is about how you, personally, use your agency. That's it! | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | freejazz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? What does that have to do with any person's individual morals? | |
| ▲ | bluerooibos an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
